Handwritten undergraduate case reports
Abstract
Summary: Background: This article describes a ‘back to the future’ approach to case ‘write‐ups’, with medical students producing handwritten instead of word‐processed case reports during their clinical placements. Word‐processed reports had been found to have a number of drawbacks, including the inappropriate use of ‘cutting and pasting’, undue length and lack of focus. Method: We developed a template to be completed by hand, based on the hospital ‘clerking‐in process’, and matched this to a new assessment pro forma. An electronic survey was conducted of both students and assessors after the first year of operation to evaluate impact and utility. Results: The new template was well received by both students and assessors. Most students said they preferred handwriting the case reports (55.6%), although a significant proportion (44.4%) preferred the word processor. Many commented that the template enabled them to effectively learn the structure of a case history and to improve their history‐taking skills. Most assessors who had previously marked case reports felt the new system represented an improvement. The average time spent marking each report fell from 23.56 to 16.38 minutes using the new pro forma. Discussion: Free text comments from the survey have led to the development of a more flexible case report template better suited to certain specialties (e.g. dermatology). This is an evolving process and there will be opportunities for further adaptation as electronic medical records become more common in hospital.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Students struggle to contextualize experimental data within broader scientific frameworks, which sometimes leads students to resort to plagiarism to complete their reports.
“A frequently cited difficulty is students' struggle to contextualize experimental data within broader scientific frameworks, which sometimes leads students to resort to plagiarism to complete their reports (Bertram Gallant et al., 2019;McGlade et al., 2012).”
From Replacing Traditional Written Laboratory Reports with Interactive Oral Assessments: Enhancing Laboratory Skill Assessment in Undergraduate Genetics Education (2026) · cites this paper as McGlade et al., 2012
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Drumm, B. T., Bree, R., Griffin, C. S., & O’Leary, N. (2024) · Advances in Physiology Education · doi:10.1152/advan.00257.2023 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Della Vedova, C. B., Birbeck, D., & Davey, S. K. (2026) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-026-10380-3
- Authors
- McGlade, K., Cargo, C., Fogarty, D., Boohan, M., & McMullin, M.
- Affiliations
- Queen's University Belfast (GB)
- Corresponding author
- McGlade, Kieran
- Venue
- The Clinical Teacher
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-03-08
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 112-118
- ISSN
- 1743-4971 (ISSN-L)
- 1743-498X
- OpenAlex
- W2097017975
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Clinical Teacher (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- medical students, clinical practicum, history-taking skills, word processing, clinical evaluation
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Patient Care, United Kingdom, Humans, Writing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review